AMD Radeon HD 6950 vs AMD Radeon R5 M435 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6950 scores 6,210, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5,859. The HD 6950 wins this benchmark by a 6% margin.

Q: How does the HD 6950 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The HD 6950 sits within 1.1% of the AMD FirePro W600 (6,223), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6,270), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6,270), and NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282). It trails the Quadro K620 by 1.1% and beats the FirePro W600 by 0.2%.

Q: Where does the R5 M435 rank among its closest competitors?

A: The R5 M435 scores 5,859, which is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5,841) but 1.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5,929), 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5,955), and 1.6% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5,957).

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the HD 6950 uses a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the R5 M435 uses a 64-bit bus with 36.00 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 6950’s memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), whereas the R5 M435’s memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The HD 6950 is built on TSMC’s 40 nm process with 2,640 million transistors on a 389 mm² die. The R5 M435 is built on TSMC’s 28 nm process with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The R5 M435 achieves a higher transistor density of 12.3M / mm² versus 6.8M / mm² for the HD 6950.

Q: Which card supports newer API features?

A: The R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The HD 6950 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support listed.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The AMD Radeon HD 6950 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 6% with a score of 6,210 versus 5,859. This places the HD 6950 in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M435 sits in the 33rd percentile. For raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the HD 6950 is the definitive choice.

However, the R5 M435 is not without merit. It is a newer design from 2016, built on a 28 nm process, and consumes far less power — though its TDP is not listed, its IGP slot width and lack of power connectors indicate a dramatically lower power draw than the HD 6950’s 200 W TDP with dual-slot cooling and 2x 6-pin connectors. The R5 M435 also supports newer APIs: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, compared to the HD 6950’s DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4.

For users prioritizing compute throughput in OpenCL or legacy workloads, the HD 6950 is the pick. For those needing modern API support, lower power consumption, and a compact IGP form factor — such as in portable devices — the R5 M435 is the sensible option. The benchmark gap is modest at 6%, but the architectural and feature differences are substantial.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole benchmark in the head-to-head comparison is Geekbench OpenCL. The HD 6950 scores 6,210 against the R5 M435’s 5,859, yielding a 6% delta in favor of the HD 6950. This is a meaningful but not overwhelming margin.

The HD 6950’s advantage stems from its far larger compute configuration. It has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. The R5 M435 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This is a 4.4x difference in shading units, 4.4x in TMUs, and 4x in ROPs. Pixel rate for the HD 6950 is 25.60 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s for the R5 M435 — a 3.1x advantage. Texture rate is 70.40 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s — a 3.4x advantage. FP32 compute is 2.253 TFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS — a 3.4x advantage.

Yet the R5 M435 narrows the gap in OpenCL to just 6%. This suggests that the R5 M435’s GCN 1.0 architecture is more efficient per compute unit, or that the benchmark does not scale perfectly with raw resources. The R5 M435 also has a higher boost clock of 1030 MHz versus the HD 6950’s base clock (which is not listed, but the memory clock is 1250 MHz). The R5 M435’s base clock is 780 MHz.

Memory bandwidth is a major differentiator: 160.0 GB/s for the HD 6950 versus 36.00 GB/s for the R5 M435. Despite this 4.4x bandwidth advantage for the HD 6950, the OpenCL score difference is only 6%. This indicates that the benchmark may be more compute-bound than memory-bound, or that the R5 M435’s newer architecture compensates for its narrower memory bus.

The nearest rivals provide context. The HD 6950’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W600 at 6,223, which is 0.2% higher. The R5 M435’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M465 at 5,841, which it beats by 0.3%. Both cards are positioned in the lower-middle range of GPU performance, with percentiles of 36 and 33 respectively.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category.

Process and Die: The HD 6950 uses a 40 nm process with a 389 mm² die and 2,640 million transistors. The R5 M435 uses a 28 nm process with a 56 mm² die and 690 million transistors. Transistor density is 6.8M / mm² for the HD 6950 and 12.3M / mm² for the R5 M435.

Clocks: The HD 6950 has no listed base or boost clock; its memory clock is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The R5 M435 has a base clock of 780 MHz, a boost clock of 1030 MHz, and a memory clock of 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

Memory: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the bus width differs: 256-bit for the HD 6950 versus 64-bit for the R5 M435. Bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 36.00 GB/s.

Compute Units: The HD 6950 has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R5 M435 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Rates: Pixel rate is 25.60 GPixel/s for the HD 6950 versus 8.240 GPixel/s for the R5 M435. Texture rate is 70.40 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 is 2.253 TFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS.

Power and Cooling: The HD 6950 has a 200 W TDP, dual-slot width, 2x 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The R5 M435 has no listed TDP, is IGP slot width, has no power connectors, and no suggested PSU.

Bus Interface: The HD 6950 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The R5 M435 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Display Outputs: The HD 6950 has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The R5 M435 is "Portable Device Dependent."

Dimensions: The HD 6950 measures 286 mm (11.3 inches) in length, 126 mm (5 inches) in height, and 42 mm (1.7 inches) in width. The R5 M435 has no listed dimensions.

API Support: The HD 6950 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4. The R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The HD 6950 is built on the TeraScale 3 architecture with the Cayman chip, part of the Northern Islands (HD 6900) generation. The R5 M435 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip, part of the Gem System (R5 M400) generation. This is a fundamental architectural shift: TeraScale 3 is a VLIW-based design, while GCN 1.0 uses a scalar design optimized for compute workloads.

The process node difference is significant: 40 nm for the HD 6950 versus 28 nm for the R5 M435. This explains the transistor density improvement — 6.8M / mm² versus 12.3M / mm² — despite the R5 M435 having far fewer total transistors (690 million versus 2,640 million).

The HD 6950 has a much larger die (389 mm² versus 56 mm²) and more compute resources across the board. However, the R5 M435’s GCN architecture is more modern and supports newer APIs, including Vulkan 1.2.170, which the HD 6950 lacks entirely.

The R5 M435 is a mobile-oriented chip with IGP slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The HD 6950 is a desktop card with dual-slot cooling, multiple display outputs, and a 200 W TDP. The release dates reflect this: the HD 6950 launched on 2010-12-13, while the R5 M435 launched on 2016-05-14 — a gap of over five years.

The HD 6950’s predecessor is Evergreen and its successor is Southern Islands. The R5 M435’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Both are end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon HD 6950 wins on raw compute performance. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 6,210 is 6% higher than the R5 M435’s 5,859. It also dominates in shading units (1,408 versus 320), TMUs (88 versus 20), ROPs (32 versus 8), pixel rate (25.60 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s), texture rate (70.40 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s), and FP32 (2.253 TFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS). Memory bandwidth is 4.4x higher at 160.0 GB/s versus 36.00 GB/s. For any workload that scales with raw compute resources — such as OpenCL compute tasks, older games, or GPU-accelerated rendering — the HD 6950 is the stronger performer.

AMD Radeon R5 M435 wins on efficiency and modern features. While its TDP is not listed, the IGP form factor and absence of power connectors indicate a much lower power draw than the HD 6950’s 200 W. It is built on a newer 28 nm process with higher transistor density. It supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the HD 6950 is limited to DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4. The R5 M435 also uses PCIe 3.0 x8, a newer bus standard than the HD 6950’s PCIe 2.0 x16. For portable devices, embedded systems, or applications requiring modern API support with minimal power draw, the R5 M435 is the appropriate choice.

The Verdict on the data: The HD 6950 wins the only benchmark, but the R5 M435 is a more modern, efficient, and feature-complete chip. The 6% performance gap is modest given the 4.4x difference in shading units, suggesting that the GCN architecture is considerably more efficient per compute resource. Users with legacy compute needs should choose the HD 6950; users with modern API requirements or power constraints should choose the R5 M435.